Off-Topic Tangents

[feral chile]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

there's two people making an apple pie. One has apples and pastry, the other just pastry.

Only one has the potential to be a real apple pie. The other will only ever be a bullshit apple pie.  

I called it out as a bullshit article because it's a bullshit article. It deliberately lies thru omission, to paint an untrue picture.

Well neither mention the oil crisis. Both mention deindustrialisation. Both blame governments focusing on short term goals. The second article covers more than the 1970s, blames Labour too, but the redpepper article wasn't discussing deindustrialisation, it was discussing the 1970s. The redpepper one does discuss oil.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Well neither mention the oil crisis.

only one claims high inflation happened without an oil crisis.  

 

Quote

Both mention deindustrialisation. Both blame governments focusing on short term goals.

and both are incorrect* with that conclusion - but at least one did manage to reference reality in getting to its conclusion. The other invented its own world.

* unless you tell me how socialism in one country can stop [say] Korea establishing it's own steel industry so it doesn't need the UK's.

 

Quote

The second article covers more than the 1970s, blames Labour too, but the redpepper article wasn't discussing deindustrialisation, it was discussing the 1970s. The redpepper one does discuss oil.

Yup, it was discussing the 70s, and going out of its way to pain a false picture. A world where all the good stuff was from the hard efforts of the workers, and all the bad stuff was due to the nasty capitalists.

The real world had other bigger stuff going on than it cares to include. Ever stopped and considered how come?

Edited November 19, 2019 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

Ha! I finally found one of the spacehopper references I read earlier:

It was this type of thing I kept coming across:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17703483

"And yet the strange thing about the 1970s is that although many people vividly remember the power cuts, strikes and shocking headlines, they often have surprisingly affectionate personal memories of the decade that taste forgot.

It has become a cliche to look back through rose-tinted glasses at the world of Bagpuss, space hoppers and Curly Wurlies - all of which, I should admit, dominate my memories of the decade, because I was born in 1974.

But in a funny way, those things actually work very well as symbols of the decade, because what they represent is the reality of everyday affluence.

The fact that so many children had space hoppers, ludicrous as it may seem, is testament to the fact that even working-class families now had a solid disposable income and could afford toys for their younger members.

Even Star Wars, which first went on general release in Britain in early 1978, would never have become such a phenomenon had not so many children had the pocket money for all those Palitoy figures.

The truth is that behind all those terrible economic and political headlines, most ordinary families in 1970s Britain were better off than ever.

While people shook their heads sorrowfully over the breakfast table, digesting the news of some new IRA bombing or absurdly petty British Leyland strike, their surroundings often told a rather more optimistic story.

The lurid furnishings of their new suburban homes, the sw*nky hostess trolley in the kitchen, the bottles of Blue Nun and Black Tower cooling in the fridge, the brand new colour television in the lounge, the turmeric-coloured Rover SD1 in the drive, even their teenage children's painfully tight flared trousers - all of those things, which are so easy to satirise today, reflected the realities of a brave new world, forged in the crucible of mass abundance".

And it was this part of the redpepper article that I focused on:

"Britain was so far from being a ‘failed state’ in the 1970s that a survey by the New Economics Foundation – based on social inequality indices, investment in public services, levels of pay and other benefits to ordinary workers – found that 1976 was the ‘happiest year’ in the period 1945 to date. There were major advances on sexual equality, such as the Equal Pay Act, the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act, and child benefit. Britain in the 1970s was also characterised by vibrant and original popular music, design and fashion industries".

Ypu should have worked out by now that I'm interested in social and cultural stuff.

Edited November 19, 2019 by feral chile

[feral chile]

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

but he *CLEARLY supported *ONE* side.  

" ... those of us who wish to see a United Ireland ..."

And he didn't hold any talks with anyone who wasn't on the nationalist side.

Why was that if it was about peace?

I'll come back to this in a minute.

[feral chile]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/22/lost-moment-exhibition-northern-ireland-civil-rights-1968-troubles-what-if

Didn't want to lose this link, and this is way off topic.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, feral chile said:

I'll come back to this in a minute.

after you've tried to change the subject, yeah?  

[feral chile]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

after you've tried to change the subject, yeah?  

Nope. Also going to get thatvquote over here where it belongs.

I'm more interested in the ideas behind stuff.

It's weird, Corbyn seems to be on the side of the academics, but he never was one himself.

[feral chile]

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

OK, for reference.

[feral chile]

6 minutes ago, feral chile said:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

OK, for reference.

OK. 

So he wants to end British rule in NI. Probably sees it as colonialism.

Refuses to condemn IRA unequivocally. Condemns violence on all sides.

See, I don't see anything wrong with that.

You might start condemning nationalism again, but it depends on perspective. If you think the union is simply English nationalism, and the other nations fighting for freedom....

I know you find that offensive, but so do I find it offensive when someone identifying as British refuses to recognise the right of others to identify with their national identity.

It's all arbitrary.

On the course I dimly remember, it was looking at civil disobedience as part of democracy, and whether violence is ever justified if democracy fails. Northern Ireland was used as an obvious example.

Edited January 13, 2020 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, feral chile said:

I don't see anything wrong with that.

I didn't say there was.  

I pointed out that you read an article which made clear he was supporting one side, and  you claimed he wasn't supporting one side.

Also, I asked you about the non *mainstream* acceptability of his views, and how those non-mainstream views have driven the bad press he's got.

And amusingly, even you can't see his views as acceptable, because newspaper reports of his views are only "bad press" if the reader sees Corbyn's views as bad.  

[feral chile]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't say there was.  

I pointed out that you read an article which made clear he was supporting one side, and  you claimed he wasn't supporting one side.

Also, I asked you about the non *mainstream* acceptability of his views, and how those non-mainstream views have driven the bad press he's got.

And amusingly, even you can't see his views as acceptable, because newspaper reports of his views are only "bad press" if the reader sees Corbyn's views as bad.  

He wasn't supporting the IRA. He was in favour of a united Ireland.

He was not condoning violence on either side.

I was talking about the means. You're way oversimplifying the situation. Did successive governments support terrorists by holding secret talks with the IRA?

I think Corbyn denied direct contact with IRA members, didn't he?

When Tom Watson speaks up for fantasists, he's a hero. When Corbyn does, he's a villain.

If we take them at face value, they're both trying to help people, right wrongs, etc.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

He wasn't supporting the IRA. He was in favour of a united Ireland.

while inviting IRA members to the Hoc (and not inviting anyone from the other side). 

It is what it is.

And from a mainstream perspective, it crosses the line of acceptable behaviour and paints a big easy target for the press on Corbyn's back.

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I was talking about the means. You're way oversimplifying the situation. Did successive governments support terrorists by holding secret talks with the IRA?

YOU are over-simplifying the situation, by pretending all contacts are equal.  

Was Corbyn holding peace talks? No.

Was Corbyn in any position of influence to takes things forward if he was holding peace talks? Also no.

Corbyn was supporting the side he supported. That and only that.

 

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

I think Corbyn denied direct contact with IRA members, didn't he?

he denied laying a wreath in Libya too.  

If Corbyn believed Adams - who was flown by helicopter from jail in 1973 for secret talks with Willie Whitelaw - wasn't in the IRA then you need to ask yourself all sorts of questions about the mind of Corbyn and how useful it might be to anything.

 

3 minutes ago, feral chile said:

When Tom Watson speaks up for fantasists, he's a hero. When Corbyn does, he's a villain.

If we take them at face value, they're both trying to help people, right wrongs, etc.

Not sure what your on about with Watson, but I'll take an easy guess that he wasn't speaking up for murderers and self-declared warring enemies of the UK.

Am I right?

[feral chile]

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

while inviting IRA members to the Hoc (and not inviting anyone from the other side). 

It is what it is.

And from a mainstream perspective, it crosses the line of acceptable behaviour and paints a big easy target for the press on Corbyn's back.

YOU are over-simplifying the situation, by pretending all contacts are equal.  

Was Corbyn holding peace talks? No.

Was Corbyn in any position of influence to takes things forward if he was holding peace talks? Also no.

Corbyn was supporting the side he supported. That and only that.

 

he denied laying a wreath in Libya too.  

If Corbyn believed Adams - who was flown by helicopter from jail in 1973 for secret talks with Willie Whitelaw - wasn't in the IRA then you need to ask yourself all sorts of questions about the mind of Corbyn and how useful it might be to anything.

 

Not sure what your on about with Watson, but I'll take an easy guess that he wasn't speaking up for murderers and self-declared warring enemies of the UK.

Am I right?

He was speaking up for victims.

Tom Watson - manipulative liars claiming sex abuse.

Corbyn - violent men representing Catholics who were treated badly as a minority group.

Victims of child abuse and victims of religious discrimination should be supported, yes?

By talking, preferably.

I think they'd already tried that, though.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, feral chile said:

He was speaking up for victims.

but only the victims on his side.  

 

Quote

Corbyn - violent men representing Catholics who were treated badly as a minority group.

Victims of child abuse and victims of religious discrimination should be supported, yes?

By talking, preferably.

I think they'd already tried that, though.

Hmmm. Are we talking 1968, or 1984? There's a big difference between those times. 

Also, it's odd that self-determination plays no part whatsoever in Corbyn's thinking, don't you think?

And meanwhile, supporting an IRA victory and the surrender of the British state was never going to play well to the majority of the British public.

Corbyn wasn't "picked on" by the media, he was held to account for his actions - and even he didn't speak in defence of those actions in 2015+. He disowned his 'friends' and talked billy big bollocks about his interference in Northern Ireland.

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by eFestivals

[feral chile]

OK. James Blunt and Brexit, continued from "Confessions"

This was the original article that's caused the backlash:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/james-blunt-interview-brexit-twitter-album-once-upon-a-mind-carrie-fisher-release-date-a9159956.html

I can't find any other reference to his Brexit views, which he refuses to state.

When asked outright, this is the dialogue:

“For soldiers, the whole end game is always peace,” he says. “How can we stop people killing people so we can all go home at the end of the day alive to our families. That means understanding people’s differences. I feel the same way with politics today. There’s a left and a right and most humans are surely in the middle.”

 

But we were all asked to vote, I say.

“And it was pretty close. We’re chewing ourselves up on this question, because neither side is understanding why people reached these opinions. Why is it we can’t even have a dialogue about it?” 

Well, what was his view?

“I think it’s pretty much bulls**t. It’s all a political thing. I’m going to carry on touring through Europe whatever happens. Rather than having a title on it, my call to arms would be ‘get the f*** on with it’, because our lives aren’t going to change. My tour manager is going to be pissed off he has to fill in a few more forms, but whatever you do, get on with it, because the limbo is killing us.”  

But you don’t want to say how you voted? 

“No. I don’t want to be given the label.” 

 

So, the interviewer then speculates:

 

In the end, I can’t make up my mind. Either he is a Leaver wary of spooking his pro-EU fans, or he is a Remainer who wants to appear sound to the shire Tories who comprise a chunk of his fanbase. 

 

Or maybe, he genuinely thinks it was a democratic result that needs to be resolved for the sake of peace.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by feral chile

[kaosmark2]

"Because our lives aren't going to change"

It won't change for the rich and privileged.

[feral chile]

30 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

"Because our lives aren't going to change"

It won't change for the rich and privileged.

I can't find any other reference to him about Brexit. If he thinks our lives won't change, I'm not sure if he voted or what he voted.

Because presumably, most people voted Leave for change. For the better.

And most people voted Remain to avoid change for the worse.

It's certainly easy for the monied classes to feel it doesn't affect them.

He sounds like he should have abstained, since it's "just politics," but then you'd think he'd say that.

He's been unusually reticent, by the looks of it, since.

Edited January 26, 2020 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

16 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

"Because our lives aren't going to change"

It won't change for the rich and privileged.

it'll change for the rich and privileged more than it will the poor who can't afford to go abroad.